95001061 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte 6446045 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 17, 2013

95001061 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 95/001,061 07/07/2008 6446045 23373-004RX1 8249 7590 06/18/2013 Michael F. Heim HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 600 TRAVIS STREET SUITE 6710 HOUSTON, TX 77002 EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ GOOGLE, INC. Third Party Requester, Respondent v. FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2011-010724 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,061 United States Patent 6,446,045 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KEVIN F. TURNER, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DISPOSITION OF APPEAL Appeal 2011-010724 Reexamination Control 95/001,061 Patent 6,446,045 B1 2 DISCUSSION Patent Owner and Appellant (hereinafter “Patent Owner”) requested that we reconsider the Panel’s Decision of May 23, 2012 (hereinafter “Decision”), in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, filed June 25, 2012, wherein we reversed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. (See Decision 10.) Third Party Requester and Respondent (hereinafter “Requester”) requests that the Board deny Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing in an Opposition Brief to Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, filed July 25, 2012. Requester additionally seeks that we reconsider the Panel’s Decision, in Requester’s Request for Rehearing, filed June 25, 2012. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a final holding of invalidity of claims 1-23 of the subject patent based upon the indefiniteness of sole independent claim 1. See Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Because all claims under reexamination (independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-23) have been held to be invalid by the Federal Circuit, this case is being remanded for termination of reexamination proceedings. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(“if a court finds a patent invalid, and that decision is either upheld on appeal or not appealed, the PTO may discontinue its reexamination”). REMANDED Appeal 2011-010724 Reexamination Control 95/001,061 Patent 6,446,045 B1 3 ack cc: PATENT OWNER: MICHAEL F. HEIM HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 600 TRAVIS STREET HOUSTON, TX 77002 THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN C. PHILLIPS FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO, CA 92130